Originally posted by ContourPower:
Originally posted by friction:
Really.. the HP/Liter war in DOHC vs. Pushrod is just comparing apples to oranges. HP is directly related to TORQUE. (If I remember correctly HP = (Torque*RPM)/5252. )A pushrod (or 2Valve) motor will make more useable low end torque, simply because it maintains a higher air velocity at the lower RPMS.

Also, I'm pretty sure that a stock 5-spd, 5.0 Fox body will do significantly better than 15.2 in the 1/4.






ya thats the correct formula..but that is aslo just it!!! torque x RPM!! i would like to see mustangs rev out at 8500 RPM...you would think that the fox body was faster, but it isn't. ive riddin' in both stock and modded..with sources (ie. that r&t mag) to back it up. I'm not trying to say EVER that there isn't rice rollin around..what makes me mad is the sterotypical BIG BLOCK boy trashing hondas... i had the same argument today in my shop..Chevelle this, Camaro that...untill i layed down a sport compact with that neon that runs mid 10's, N/A. People need to reconize that low displacment engines are the wave of the future, as gas prices grow, so will small car numbers...
Originally posted by friction:
And even if you want to play the HP/Liter game, look at the LS6 in the Z-06 Corvette 405hp/5.7 liters. That's 71hp/liter.. more specific output than a standard 2.5 Liter duratec, and with Torque to back it up!

FINALLY!!! How long has it taken GM to get 400 hp out of their modern day 350?? playing that game, ill just bring the WHOLE fleet of Hondas/acura..gm got it right once, how about all the B series engines?? or even BMW M3 - 340 HP 3.3 liters..the list goes on, GM got it right once. Every company uses pushrods..Good low end torque to drive the kids around with..all companies (Supercoupe, GTP, SSEI..) would like Roots blowerscuz i havn't seen a centrifugal on a car yet


Originally posted by Blackie:
Except the Honda is frickin pathetic in the torque dept. How much does technology and HP/Litre matter when you're lookin at a pushrod V-8's tailights??



Who needs torque if you car only weights 2500 lbs? Obviously they are doing someithing right. I.E. S2000 or NSX.

Don't forget for you F body dudes...the fastest TA wasn't a V8, but was the turbo 6 in the late 80's

-Tim





damn you think just like a ricer...hp per liter blah blah blah....you are also sadly mistaken on your idiotic FOX body mustangs(the pics you earlier posted were of sn95 stangs by the way)1/4 mile times....i am looking at my mustang milestones poster on my wall right now...and the stock 1/4 mile time posted for a 1989 5speed lx in a road and track magazine performance car special is 14.6 seconds@97 mph....and 0-60 at 6.0 seconds and a top speed of 138 mph....that is BONE STOCK......an automic convertible gt may run 15.2,but not a 5speed.....a STOCK 5speed stang will hand a STOCK integra its a$$ all day long period...and that's just a fact...

now i can attest to those 1/4 mile times my current 93 lx ran a 14.2 STOCK(with factory 3.73 gears,removed air silencer,k@n drop in)and has run from that down to its current 12.9's in various stages of mods...all motor...my ex wife had a 93 gt with a k&n drop in and 3.55 gears ran 14.0's all day long with her driving...no other mods....my former 88 gt automatic ran a 15.0 stock,and i had it running well into the 13's with some engine mods,before i sold it...and knew several others with fox stangs that ran from the slowest a 14.8 down to the fastest my cousins 93 cobra that ran 9.98's(it did have a massive supercharger though)so get the real world facts before you post some bulls##t 1/4 mile times...even if that was listed in some mag somewhere it certainly wasn't the norm i'll assure you...that's what having 300 lb. ft. of torque stock is like....

and while i don't love ls1 gm's you gotta give credit where credit is due those things were fast as s##t bone stock...the 98 and later ls1's were grossly underated in horsepower from the factory,and were fast as hell even in stock trim....

i also respect the fact that hondas can be fast(i have a friend that drags an 88 crx)and it is damn fast,but your horsepower per liter argument is stupid as s##t....and the so called awesome cars you list are 14 second cars...again wow i am impressed....as i said my 10 yr. old stang ran that or faster stock...i am not impressed...and as far as looks my stang is very nice looking,as are many fox stangs,so you're wrong again...

new,new ride! '99 svt black/mnb '95 mustang gt sold! '98 svt #800 sold!